Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

BTW we do have universal health care in the sense that if you go to a hospital they are obligated by law to treat you [EDIT: stabilize you and release you asap but not treating the underlying condition]. They then bill you later and if you don't have insurance you are likely [EDIT: to first lose your home, be forced to declare bankruptcy and then have your family put on the street] just never pay and they write it off for tax purposes. So they jack up the prices for individuals relative to what they charge insurance companies to maximize this writeoff. This means if you actually intend to pay out of pocket you will pay many, many times more than is reasonable. Which means fewer people choose to do so. With uninsured people not paying their bills, rates for insurance companies go up. Then more people can't afford health insurance. Viscous cycle.

Sounds like a dysfunctional, basket case, banana republic to me...it certainly has nothing to do with universal health care, but rather with universal profiteering off of others' pain, death and suffering.

And, the 45.000 yearly deaths of American men, women and children from this fiasco of having no meaningful access to health care is the equivalent to one 911 terrorist attack every 3 1/2 weeks, year in, year out.

dewster: The problem isn't finding affordable health insurance. The problem is health insurance. I think it should be PROHIBITED. Eliminated. Banned.

After all, you don't have piano insurance to pay for your piano. Nor beer insurance to cover your tab at the pub. So why do you need health insurance? (Only because medicine costs too damn much. It didn't used to be that way. Health insurance CREATED the high-cost problem.)

As for the braggarts who gush over socialist health care in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere ... you can keep it. And keep every government program, too. Bar none.

I don't need government to dictate to me.I don't need government to provide for me.I don't need government to guide me.I don't need government to provide a retirement income.All of that is for losers. (So let them have it.)

I only need government to defend the nation. That's how this nation started. But that's not how it is anymore. It's a sad testament to ever-growing American losership.

Johann Strauss? You gotta be kiddin'Gimme a break!If there is anything that should be off topic on the Digital Piano forum (or the Pianist Corner for that matter) then it is J. Strauss!

I disegree, protest. I particularly never liked the Wiener Saloon-style music (from the Monarchie, which was on parellel to Victiorian time) in particular and never listen to it. The music of the Strauss's was banned here in Hungary in musical education of my childhood. (We are not talking about Richard Strauss - he was only halfway banned and only for his alleged NS collaboration).

Today's popular genres as musicals or even some of Soul/Soft Jazz are functionally or regarding taste, cultural depth the same thing in many-many aspects as operette was in the past. They all were for entertaining broad consuming masses, the big difference is that operett music came from Vienna, todays musicals from the Broadway. As memes both similarly successfully penetrate the rest of the world.

dewster: The problem isn't finding affordable health insurance. The problem is health insurance. I think it should be PROHIBITED. Eliminated. Banned.

After all, you don't have piano insurance to pay for your piano. Nor beer insurance to cover your tab at the pub. So why do you need health insurance? (Only because medicine costs too damn much. It didn't used to be that way. Health insurance CREATED the high-cost problem.)

As for the braggarts who gush over socialist health care in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere ... you can keep it. And keep every government program, too. Bar none.

I don't need government to dictate to me.I don't need government to provide for me.I don't need government to guide me.I don't need government to provide a retirement income.All of that is for losers. (So let them have it.)

I only need government to defend the nation. That's how this nation started. But that's not how it is anymore. It's a sad testament to ever-growing American losership.

I was in Philadelphia two years ago for my 60th birthday. My brother is a retired Philadelphia fireman and while we were sightseeing in downtown Philadelphia we saw historic fire insurance markers on buildings.

You see, back in the beginning of our country individuals would subscribe to individual fire companies and a metal or wooden marker would be prominently displayed on the outside of their house to indicate which company they subscribed to. If your house were on fire and not insured, your house would burn down.

Now, because of societal maturity, if your house is on fire, your local fire department is tasked to put it out.

What is so f***ing difficult to understand about shared responsibility and shared risk?

Some folks call this socialism. Everyone 'chips in' and pays a local sales\real estate\property\school\whatever-you-want-to-call-it tax and whether you need it or not, your local police department, your local fire department, ... your local library is there ... just for you, when you need it, whether you want it or not.

It's a great thread about a great country, you should visit sometime! But please respect our customs, which might seem a tad odd to a deviant socialist demon worshiper like yourself.

The people here are super helpful and friendly. Just be careful you don't stand in their way when they're going Galt - liable to get you run over.

And please don't help my dying grandma lying in the ditch - we don't bail out individuals for engaging in irresponsible behavior like aging at the expense of those like us (and by "us" I mean "me" and not "you") who prosper through hard work and personal responsibility.

Everyone here is so self-reliant they can and do perform brain surgery on themselves. No weaklings here, no sir.

I live in Norfolk in the UK and am both glad and proud to be part of the EU. The EU does have problems, a lot of them stemming from different countries wanting different things out of Europe. But get 1000 UK citizens that say they want to vote to get out of the EU, you will be lucky if 2 of them have the slightest clue what they are talking about, most basing their opinions on what the fat bloke said down the pub or the scare stories the Daily Mail prints.

That is the danger of having a free vote. A free vote is fine when the majority take the time to get well informed, but when the majority haven't got a clue what they are talking about (I'm not meaning they disagree with me, I'm happy for people to have different opinions from me providing they are proper opinions based on fact), there's a real danger of people voting for something they don't understand (both for staying in the EU or for getting out of it)

Many many many small businesses would go bankrupt if we left the EU

Many of the stories in the press are pure fabrication such as bananas having to be a certain shape etc.

The US, I both love and hate it. I've worked for a US company (me based in England) and have met many US people over here. Those that travel around the world tend to be more aware of the reality of the world than those that have never ever left the US in their entire lives. A lot of people in the US are very insular in their thinking. Sort of set in the past, think that everything about the US is better than every where else in the world and believe a lot of the propaganda that is fed to them by their government and media.

I even had a comment from a couple of US people I was having dinner with about how they were shocked when they first started travelling as to how censored many books are in the US compared to the same book elsewhere.

The US is sadly looked on as a bully by most of the rest of the world, it's seen to cause more problems than it solves (the UK is far from innocent in this I should add). Often foreign police by the US (and the UK) has done more long term to cause terrorism to arise than anything else. Its easy for us to witness a terrorist attack and want our governments to fight back, but too often it's our governments past actions that caused these attacks in the first place and it's something we all should think hard about.

The US is probably the richest country on the planet (maybe one of the Arab small countries might be richer), it dictates to other countries how they should run their governments, cries out for other countries to be democratic etc. yet at the same time, it has more than the entire population of England living below the poverty line, families with kids etc sleeping in cars, without a proper roof over their heads and unable to get basic health care. The vast majority of the rest of the world simply cant fathom this.

I play a game called Lord of the Rings Online, I've been on the internet since it first became available, way before most people even had heard of it, in all that time I have never ever got any forum infractions etc until the past few months. I had to witness US politicians slag of the UKs NHS service, then on Lord of the rings Forum, the moderators started up a charity in order to pay for operations for US children who couldn't afford them, and awarding those that donated with unique in game items.

I've nothing against people doing things for charity, but I object to a company based in the richest country in the world, reaching out around the globe to its international players trying to get us to pay for their own children's operations and bribing us with items that we cant get in any other way, and I was escpecially annoyed as it was a couple of weeks after they slagged off my NHS.

So I politely (not as badly as I've quickly told them here) said what i thought and got my first and second reprimand/forum infraction ever.

There are a lot of things wrong with the NHS. I know a few people that have moved abroad to the likes of the US or Canada and their private health schemes have paid for tests etc that have found solutions to problems they've been suffering for years with in the UK. The UK being tax funded only has a finite amount of money so the latest and greatest expensive medicines and tests aren't readily available.

That brings up a whole new subject on how pharmaceutical companies can live with them selves getting rich off of peoples illnesses, but I haven't got time for that here.

But where the NHS excels is that regardless of ability to pay, anyone can see a doctor 24/7 without worrying about getting a bill, anyone can go to a hospital 24/7 without worrying about getting a bill and anyone can phone an ambulance in an emergency and receive first class treatment, again without worrying about having a bill. Our emergency care, intensive care units etc are first class and it's available to everyone at point of need. You would never see someone campaigning to pay for an operation for a child (or adult) in this country, unless it was for something that couldn't be done in this country (a new surgery that's only available abroad). Sure I've been waiting for an operation since October 2012 and I still don't have a date, but it's not a life threatening thing. Sure I'd like it quickly and my US friends cant understand why I wasn't given a date straight away, but I still have the option to take out private health over here if I choose, but part of my taxes will always go to the NHS and I am glad of that.

I was in Houston a few years ago talking to a guy with dwarfism. He has never ever been able to get medical insurance since the day he was born and has to rely totally on charity for his numerous medical problems he was suffering from.

That is the sort of thing the rest of the world sees and hears about on a daily basis and them we see people (often Christians and I say that as a Christian) arguing against a free health service for all of the US and it makes our minds explode, we simply cannot understand it.

We witness the suing culture that's sadly begun to weave its way into UK culture (but no where near as bad) in the US where it seems that anyone sues anyone else for anything and gets to be mega rich overnight by doing so, we see court cases on TV that are ludicrous, OJ Simpson for example there's no way one single member of that jury managed to follow that evidence, we see the death sentence being handed out yet crime not going down, we see prison sentences running into many times the average lifespan of a human given, we see people fined or jailed for a ludicrous amount of time for trying to feed their family or downloading a few music tracks, we see you exploit our extradition laws that were put in place for terrorism etc to try and get some idiot who as a teenager thought he was being clever by hacking into somewhere but is no real danger to anyone etc etc etc

And we look at your gun crime, we obviously were as upset by 9/11 as you are, (at the same time my home town was blown up by the IRA in the 70's and my grandmother thrown from her bed by an IRA bomb and it was all funded by people in the US) but then we look at how many people were killed by the gun in the US in the next few months and realised that more were than were killed in that fateful day, and something about your country just simply doesn't add up to the rest of the world.

And I'm pretty sure I know what it is that most gets us. I live in England, am proud to be British but I know the problems my country has, I know how imperfect my country is, I know the awful things we've done around the world over the centuries (including this one) and so do all the other Brits. 95% of US people I talk to seem totally oblivious to it and take discussions like this as me personally attacking their country and refuse to listen to anyone say anything against their country. I can imaging people at their screens wearing stars and stripes outfits screaming at me saying USA, USA, USA. OK that's an exaggeration but that is how you come across to the rest of the world.

I know how the UK comes across to most of the world, we are detested almost as much as you are (which is why we always get zero votes in the Euro-vision song contest), but the big difference is, most people in the UK know why and whether they agree or not, understand why people think this of us, where as most US people I talk to are oblivious.

What is so f***ing difficult to understand about shared responsibility and shared risk?

It's easy to understand. I'll pay for that insurance if I want to, otherwise not. But socialism FORCES my choice. I don't like government to tell me what I must do.

Quote:

Some folks call this socialism. Everyone 'chips in' and pays a local sales\real estate\property\school\whatever-you-want-to-call-it tax and whether you need it or not, your local police department, your local fire department, ... your local library is there ... just for you, when you need it, whether you want it or not.

That's exactly the problem. "Whether you want it or not." I prefer choice over dictatorship.

Quote:

Get over it, we are in this T O G E T H E R.

Not over it. Not at all. We are in everything by C H O I C E ... or should be. (How would you like it if I were to make all of your choices for you?)

It amazes me how liberals want to tell me what I want, what I need, what I must do ... and revel in government that does that bidding. But they MOAN and GROAN over government that does what I want ... which is: as little as possible.

I'd like government to defend the nation and a very few other things ... and leave EVERYTHING ELSE to the private sector. That leaves me choices. I'll buy what, when, and how I wish. I'll choose my vendor/provider. Freedom of choice.

You are not the only one who has been reprimanded or shunned online or labeled an "anti-American enemy" for daring to simply point out certain uncomfortable facts or point out that the emperor had no clothes.

Excellent article from the BBC discussing "insularity"...I have family living in the US Midwest and it is interesting to observe that -- even when households all around them there spend an average of 5 (!) hours per day prone on their butts with 64 oz of sugar water and a bag of crisps watching television (or maybe because of this) -- most people have absolutely no integrated knowledge of life outside of their state, let alone their country.

Due perhaps to a combination of factors such as the failure of the school systems to teach more than guessing on true/false and multiple choice questions after rote learning, the size of the country, the extreme inward-looking-ness and self-focused-ness of the culture and a lack of intellectual curiosity, combined with "news" programs consisting of 40% of the time on advertisements where three people with face & breast lifts and perfect hair make jokes with each other and report mostly only on local police chases with meth dealers and high school football scores.

Just like peasants in China or serfs in Russia or comrades in the old USSR, there is a functional ignorance among millions upon millions of US citizens of both the richness of the world and a complete absence of understanding of why they are personally in the (often precarious) position they find themselves in their very own country. When that is combined with the extreme contrary-to-both-common-sense-and-objective-fact propaganda that is force-fed through Cuban-style pledges of allegiances to the flag every day in grade school classes, absurd junior high civics classes based on cartoon-like, blatantly bellicose and anti-historical tomes such as "Triumph of the American Nation", and extraordinarily patriotic advertisements of " we are number 1", "only we are 'free'" etc. etc. ad nauseum one truly sees how easily creepy Orwellian visions are achieved.

What is so f***ing difficult to understand about shared responsibility and shared risk?

It's easy to understand. I'll pay for that insurance if I want to, otherwise not. But socialism FORCES my choice. I don't like government to tell me what I must do.

Quote:

Some folks call this socialism. Everyone 'chips in' and pays a local sales\real estate\property\school\whatever-you-want-to-call-it tax and whether you need it or not, your local police department, your local fire department, ... your local library is there ... just for you, when you need it, whether you want it or not.

That's exactly the problem. "Whether you want it or not." I prefer choice over dictatorship.

Quote:

Get over it, we are in this T O G E T H E R.

Not over it. Not at all. We are in everything by C H O I C E ... or should be. (How would you like it if I were to make all of your choices for you?)

It amazes me how liberals want to tell me what I want, what I need, what I must do ... and revel in government that does that bidding. But they MOAN and GROAN over government that does what I want ... which is: as little as possible.

I'd like government to defend the nation and a very few other things ... and leave EVERYTHING ELSE to the private sector. That leaves me choices. I'll buy what, when, and how I wish. I'll choose my vendor/provider. Freedom of choice.

In other words: it is all about ME, ME, ME, MacMacMac. Everyone else be damned.

Did you choose to be born to your parents? Did you choose to be born in the USA or your home state versus another country? Did you choose to use public roads rather than only use your bare hands to wade through the wild Floridian Everglades every where you went? Did you choose for the US to be a republic with representative democracy depending on well-educated citizens who are responsible and accountable for self-government through the constitutionally instituted bodies rather than a failed state such as Somalia filled with Ayn Rand-styled "rugged individuals" choosing their self-interest as they axe each other to death? etc. etc.

People who are indoctrinated to think of everything as a personal "choice" and of themselves merely as consumers in "free" markets rather than responsible citizens and members of civilized society equate the world to being nothing more complicated than being left alone to choose Crest over Colgate toothpaste. Simplistic lies. Without having pulled together as a species and a society over the Millenia, toothpaste would never even have come into existence and we would still be fighting over tree branches with our Chimpanzee cousins.

There are two excellent books that give insight in how people can hold these kinds of unthinking, contrary and self-conflicting thoughts as quoted above that in most people raised under normal circumstances would cause a kind of extreme cognitive dissonance that would make their brains explode:

As this is a forum, could you please summarize in written words your summary of and conclusions from the 3 (three) videos you have referenced, why you believe they are credible, why you see this as an important issue, what our choices are and what free, personal choices and effective actions you are personally taking?

Johann Strauss? You gotta be kiddin'Gimme a break!If there is anything that should be off topic on the Digital Piano forum (or the Pianist Corner for that matter) then it is J. Strauss!

I disegree, protest. I particularly never liked the Wiener Saloon-style music (from the Monarchie, which was on parellel to Victiorian time) in particular and never listen to it. The music of the Strauss's was banned here in Hungary in musical education of my childhood. (We are not talking about Richard Strauss - he was only halfway banned and only for his alleged NS collaboration).

Today's popular genres as musicals or even some of Soul/Soft Jazz are functionally or regarding taste, cultural depth the same thing in many-many aspects as operette was in the past. They all were for entertaining broad consuming masses, the big difference is that operett music came from Vienna, todays musicals from the Broadway. As memes both similarly successfully penetrate the rest of the world.

And the common music language is undeniably other - but better?

Well, I do wonder how much of the music of today's Broadway musicals (not those from the 1930s & 1940s) will be worth listening to in 150 years. Probably every bit as little as the primarily insipid repertoire of operette that is actively performed today.

You can have a million dollar condo and you can't play an acoustic without complaints.

I play my digital and I wish I had a 48 weighted key keyboard so I could practice where ever I go. Maybe someday they will make them that size.

I am not that fussy but when I have a note /chord that I have to hold over 2 measures/8 beats, it doesn't do it. It fades unlike an acoustic. If you use the sustain pedal it is not right - other than that I love the digital for what it is.

You can have a digital in a resthome, hospital - almost anywhere you have room for a bed. At $600 Canadian for a weighted key keyboard is awesome so everyone can afford a piano and learn to play at any age anywhere.

I don't know if the word is replace, but the cost of making pianos will exceed the amount that most people can afford so digital will slowly replace acoustic pianos. If you go to a piano store, the acoustic section usually has nobody in there, but the digital part is full of people of all ages. Cars cost 50,000, houses cost a million and condos cost a half million for 500 sq ft and the cost of an acoustic 3 legged piano piano...... in most Canadian cities.

Studiologic VMK-149 was one with AT. Seems just have been discontinued, an Acuna could come out perhaps as replacement. All Fatar keybeds, though, TP40 vs. TP100but the Acuna88 has got much better reviews (an Acuna73 should be available by now).

It is indeed. I'm not sure how good a grasp I have of the issues in various countries of the world discussed at length here but let me just chime in briefly on the issue of health insurance and accessibility in the Czech Republic.

I suppose everyone and their grandmas know that the Czech Republic is a post-communist country. It has been nearly 24 years since the velvet revolution took place. I was only eight by that time so I didn't understand much by then.

However, even though we are supposedly "democratic, capitalistic" country now (if something like that is possible after 24 years from a revolution that had ended another 40 years of heavy communism combined with occupation by the Soviet army), our system of health care stayed pretty much the same for almost all of that time. It is only now changing somewhat into what I guess you could see in countries with no history of communism (i.e. where patients are supposed to partly cover the expenses). What has remained the same is that every working individual is supposed to pay their own monthly health (& social) insurance fee.

The upside is that "higher-level" medical care is free (pretty much anything from simple appendectomy to brain surgery). What the patient has to pay for if they stay at the hospital is a fee of 100 CZK (~ $5) for every day of the stay + any additional charges if they chose some above-standard care, like recovery rooms with extra equipment or rooms that were designed in a special way (like more comfortable and such) etc. Note that people are also allowed to insure themselves for the possibility of having to stay at the hospital -- that can further lower the impact of these fees.

Patients are also supposed to pay 30 CZK (~ $1.5) for most of the usual kinds of clinical treatment at a doctor + additional 30 CZK for every prescription sheet. Apart from that, all basic health care is free. Also, most of the more expensive medicaments are fully covered by the insurance companies, only the cheaper medicaments and those available without prescription are partly or fully covered by the patient. Lastly, special purpose check-ups are usually fully covered by the patient but depending on the purpose, the patient might get their money back (for example in case of the employment entry check-up, the employer pays the full price of the check-up back to the employee).

Since the funds are essentially pooled/shared, that also means that the money is used for treatment of chronic or long-term illnesses. Personally, I have nothing against that. People get born with all kinds of problems and the treatment of, say, disseminated sclerosis is a really expensive thing. With that said, I feel ever so slightly uneasy at the thought that I also help finance the treatment of people who are willingly ruining their own health by smoking or excessive alcohol consumption. That I'd say is the downside of our health insurance system.

So as you can see, it's not perfect but it has to work somehow. In the past years, we have had several strikes by doctors and nurses over the height of their salaries and it has long since become clear that only funding the whole healthcare system from the insurance fees is not going to cut it, but the people are only slowly getting used to having to pay for tooth filling at their dentist, besides other things. It was the right-wing party that introduced the 30 CZK fee and since people had never seen such a thing in the past, there was some outcry about this. The left-wing party hurried in with their populistic promise to abolish this necessity after getting elected (as they usually do with such unpopular matters). It didn't take long, however, for them to acknowledge that the fee really is necessary and they quickly took that promise back.

My personal stance on this whole issue is that I rather welcome these measures. IMO, people will at least remember that there really is no such thing like free health care and if that helps them remember to take better care of their body and their well-being, I'm all for that. Having said that, I'm also glad our government was far-sighted enough so as to liberate people in dire social need from the necessity to pay the 30 CZK fee and other fees as well.

So, with my not-so-brief-after-all description of the Czech healthcare system I wanted to provide an insight for you guys so you can compare with what you have in your respective countries.

One last thing for MacMacMac -- would you please lay off the egocentric attitude a little? I don't want to be the bad prophet here, nor do I wish for anything bad for you but you never know what might await you in the future.

That brings up a whole new subject on how pharmaceutical companies can live with them selves getting rich off of peoples illnesses, but I haven't got time for that here.

Nor have I but I witnessed for some 25 ys. how a big pharmaceutical company bought up a license worldwide for a molecule, which was widely fabricated and was readily available and affordable. They ensured stopping production and marketing globally, cause they found a new illness as a target, applied for a new combination treatment FDA license, they got it and this special agent was marketed since then at a price of a multiple (about 30 times !) of the original prices. (The new indication was a disease with much higher prevalence then which the agen was invented for and marketed previously.)

They brilliantly managed to apply the same new prices worldwide.

I could buy a last cheap supply for a specific problem within the family, because it's production went on a while in Milosevic's Serbia, they resisted against economical influence from the US until they got taught to be more obedient by the international NATO bombing.

I have fear to name the Big Player and even the agent, I must confess...

But it is a good example how it works. Pharma companies have also the means to prevent or postpone developing new drugs even by other companies: they can make cooperation contracts through which they can easily share the profit of. It is and easy to prove or disprove suspicion: If someone finds, that new the replacement cycle with launching generation of therapies/drugs strictly (in statistically significant manner) follows the time span of generic license protection, it is an easy proof then. I'll have to do some research....

... but let me just chime in briefly on the issue of health insurance and accessibility in the Czech Republic.

<snip>

It was the right-wing party that introduced the 30 CZK fee and since people had never seen such a thing in the past, there was some outcry about this. The left-wing party hurried in with their populistic promise to abolish this necessity after getting elected (as they usually do with such unpopular matters). It didn't take long, however, for them to acknowledge that the fee really is necessary and they quickly took that promise back.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think your left-wing was correct - this is a slippery slope your people should have nipped in the bud. I predict health care will become more and more an ideological / political football in your country, and used to divide the populace against itself. It works so well here that we have a sizable percentage of brainwashed people voting 180 degrees against their own (and therefore damaging everyone elses) self interests - I wouldn't have believed it possible if I didn't live in the middle of it. And if it can happen here it can and probably will happen elsewhere.

Why don't these people just go Galt already and leave societal resource pool they claim to loath so much to the rest of us unworthy sorts? It would be something of a win-win as I'm rather uncomfortable living around people with such questionable moral compasses. Many seem nice enough on the surface, but something deep down in their psyche has been monkey wrenched to the point where they seem eerily gleeful at the notion of others suffering.

Why don't these people just go Galt already and leave societal resource pool they claim to loath so much to the rest of us unworthy sorts? It would be something of a win-win as I'm rather uncomfortable living around people with such questionable moral compasses. Many seem nice enough on the surface, but something deep down in their psyche has been monkey wrenched to the point where they seem eerily gleeful at the notion of others suffering.

It's so weird though Dewster - you are obviously referring to Mac - but I quite often find those with what I would call the most right wing, laissez-faire, look-after-number-one attitudes about society and community and all that big stuff are often, on a more individual, personal level, the kindest most generous people. There are some high profile examples. Our Mrs Thatcher, the most divisive and in many ways hated prime minister we have had in the modern era, with a vicious and uncaring public image was capable (and many examples have surfaced over the years) of astonishingly kind and generous personal gestures, quite at odds with her public persona.

So it might not be wise to judge so harshly - although I completely take your point.

The question I would pose to Mac though, is...what would he say about those people who are unfortunate in life, or have disabilities or for whatever reason simply cannot support themselves? I mean cannot, not will not. The moment you put in place measures to give those people a decent, humane standard of living you have a kind of welfare state. Or alternatively, those people perish, or habitually commit crime through desperation. The "haves" will be in secure gated communities, constantly fearful of the actions of the "have-nots". In that case I would imagine that even the people most resentful of giving financial assistance to others through their taxes would baulk at the grim alternative?

I hope I'm wrong, but I think your left-wing was correct - this is a slippery slope your people should have nipped in the bud. I predict health care will become more and more an ideological / political football in your country, and used to divide the populace against itself. It works so well here that we have a sizable percentage of brainwashed people voting 180 degrees against their own (and therefore damaging everyone elses) self interests - I wouldn't have believed it possible if I didn't live in the middle of it. And if it can happen here it can and probably will happen elsewhere.

Why don't these people just go Galt already and leave societal resource pool they claim to loath so much to the rest of us unworthy sorts? It would be something of a win-win as I'm rather uncomfortable living around people with such questionable moral compasses. Many seem nice enough on the surface, but something deep down in their psyche has been monkey wrenched to the point where they seem eerily gleeful at the notion of others suffering.

You know, I don't think it's actually that bad. It may be just my wishful thinking now but I believe people have sort of understood that to maintain a reasonable level of quality of healthcare, their contribution is necessary. (Well, at the very least, there's not much talk about these things nowadays.)

As I have pointed out earlier, doctors and nurses have gone on at least two strikes in the past several years and rightfully so. Even though Czech doctors are well known for their high level of education and knowledge, the wages are subpar compared to those in neighboring countries and doctors/nurses often have to work long hours with very little compensation. I remember clearly that the doctors on strike were getting invited to work in German and Austrian hospitals though I'm not sure how many eventually decided to leave.

In the light of these events, I'm convinced that the previous 40 years of socialism are probably the worst that could have happened to us. The very idea that everyone's equal regardless of how hard each man works to put food on the table and that certain things are for free, healthcare included, is very deeply rooted in the minds of the people (especially the older part of the population). It will take many more years to make this right.

Having said all that, I think the saddest and most enraging part of our contemporary "capitalistic" history is the very high level of bribery -- it almost seems that whenever there is a state project that involves billions of crowns of budget, you constantly hear about someone demanding a bribe or heaps of money getting divided and disappearing in mysterious ways. If anything, this is the one thing that makes people long for the old times. I'd say things like that happen all the time, regardless of regime, it's just that with "free media" you get to hear about it more often. Unfortunately, men are only men and whenever there's a chance for profit, they will jump at it. It's just so annoying and discouraging to hear about it so often.

One last thing for MacMacMac -- would you please lay off the egocentric attitude a little? I don't want to be the bad prophet here, nor do I wish for anything bad for you but you never know what might await you in the future.

Liberty means not having the government manage your affairs (financial or otherwise). If you happen to like the way the government manages your affairs and don't care that they have taken that power from you, good for you. Go live in an authoritarian country. But loving liberty (and being willing to sacrifice a degree of security for it) is not the same thing as egocentrism. Liberty and personal property rights are the foundation of the society and economy that has defined modern mankind--especially America and places that pattern themselves after it. It's not the only way to live, but it's what Americans and many others want. The battle over whether to retain liberty or trade it for collectivism is the major issue in the US today and has been in one way or another for generations. As usual, neither side is objectively superior...it's just two different views on what it means to be a human adult.

Be a serf if you want, but don't try and make those who take a more individualistic view feel morally inferior about it.

Liberty means not having the government manage your affairs (financial or otherwise). If you happen to like the way the government manages your affairs and don't care that they have taken that power from you, good for you. Go live in an authoritarian country. But loving liberty (and being willing to sacrifice a degree of security for it) is not the same thing as egocentrism. Liberty and personal property rights are the foundation of the society and economy that has defined modern mankind--especially America and places that pattern themselves after it. It's not the only way to live, but it's what Americans and many others want. The battle over whether to retain liberty or trade it for collectivism is the major issue in the US today and has been in one way or another for generations. As usual, neither side is objectively superior...it's just two different views on what it means to be a human adult.

Be a serf if you want, but don't try and make those who take a more individualistic view feel morally inferior about it.

Fair enough. Just be ready to face the consequences when you get yourselves in a situation where your freedoms won't do squat for you but a little more security would.

Oh, and just for the record -- Czech Republic is not Belarus. Just because the government takes care of certain things does not mean I am a slave in any sense of the word.

I guess while I'm thinking about socialism and, shall we say, libertarianism, I guess I'll mention the two major issues with the socialism/collectivism that has been so highly recommended by the international community here.

1. Dead weight loss. If the government did a dollar worth of good for every dollar it took away from us, I'd be much more open to socialism. But it takes a tremendous amount of wealth from the people and wastes it in bureaucracy, ineptitude, cronyism, and corruption. This is not unique to any particular government...it's the nature of public goods and organizations. The more power you give the government improve the situation of the poorest, the greater the number of people pushed into poverty and dependence by that same government. I can look around and see many beneficial things provided by government but essentially every one I see is actually provided by state and local government, which is a very small part of our tax burden. The Feds take the lion share and do precious little good with it. This is not surprising: inefficiency increases with scale. That explains why sundry little countries can implement socialism with relatively few apparent harmful side effects but practically every step in that direction in the US brings untold misery, waste, and destruction.

It is not necessarily the case that conservatives in America always want to shrink the government in general, but it is almost always the case that true conservatives seek to shrink the FEDERAL government. Many of our states compare in size or GDP to the countries you guys are mentioning. Imagine how you would feel if in addition to your national taxes you had to pay an even larger portion of your wealth to an all-EU super-government, which promptly wasted it on projects that accomplish precious little.

2. Socialism decreases people's incentives. Contrary to the caricatures of the US abroad, the safety net here is extremely strong and constantly getting stronger. It's so easy to mooch off of the government in one way or another whether you really need it or not that tons of talented people choose to do so in place of developing and using their talents to produce something. And there are tons of people and organizations that could produce more, but are prevented by some regulation, tax, or other government disincentive. These issues were less of a problem in the past, when America was the poster boy of economic success. As we have gotten richer and richer, though, we've gotten lazier and more inclined to just move wealth from one person to another rather than improve ourselves as a nation and as individuals. American decline and American socialism go tightly hand in hand, which is why so many people oppose it despite the obvious theoretical benefits of having the government take care of anything you might worry about.

Parenthetically, it's also the case that when people outsource their good deeds to the government via what we've called liberalism, they no longer feel the need to do good themselves. This is why conservatives are overwhelmingly more charitable than liberals in the sense that they give voluntarily of their own wealth to people in need despite the fact that they both share the same tax burden. I assume that's true abroad as well.